Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study

Summary: Background: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for rectal prolapse has been implemented to reduce postoperative bowel symptoms. The preoperative-to-postoperative change in a double-blinded, randomized study comparing it to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) found no si...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jin Hidaka, Hossam Elfeki, Jakob Duelund-Jakobsen, Søren Laurberg, Lilli Lundby
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2019-11-01
Series:EClinicalMedicine
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589537019301580
id doaj-93a1ecbeb81f4d4a8383c10f5144b512
record_format Article
spelling doaj-93a1ecbeb81f4d4a8383c10f5144b5122020-11-25T02:53:57ZengElsevierEClinicalMedicine2589-53702019-11-01161822Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center StudyJin Hidaka0Hossam Elfeki1Jakob Duelund-Jakobsen2Søren Laurberg3Lilli Lundby4Department of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Corresponding author at: Department of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.Department of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of surgery, Mansoura University Hospital, Mansoura, EgyptDepartment of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, DenmarkDepartment of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, DenmarkDepartment of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, DenmarkSummary: Background: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for rectal prolapse has been implemented to reduce postoperative bowel symptoms. The preoperative-to-postoperative change in a double-blinded, randomized study comparing it to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) found no significant difference between the two procedures after one year. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term functional outcomes. Methods: From November 2006–January 2014, 75 patients were randomized to LVMR (n = 37) or LPSR (n = 38). In March 2017, questionnaires containing constipation symptom score (PAC-SYM), quality of life score (PAC-QoL), obstructed defecation score (ODS), Cleveland clinic constipation and incontinence scores (CCCS, CCIS) were mailed to all the patients included in the RCT. Prolapse recurrences and mesh complications were recorded. Finding: Sixty-nine patients were available for long-term follow-up. Questionnaires were completed by 64 patients (94.4%). The median follow-up was 6.1 years. The total PAC-QoL was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.26 (0.14–0.83) compared to the LPSR group 0.93(0.32–1.61)(P = 0.008). The total PAC-SYM was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.5 (0.21–0.87) compared to the LPSR group 1.0 (0.5–1.5)(P = 0.031). Except for CCIS, the ODS and the CCCS significantly favored the LVMR group at six years (P = 0.011 & 0.017). Only three(8.82%) patients in the LVMR group developed recurrence compared to seven(23.33%) in the LPSR group (P = 0.111). Interpretation: The long-term functional outcome after LVMR is superior to that after LPSR. Larger multicenter studies are warranted. Funding: None. Keywords: Rectal prolapse, Ventral mesh rectopexy, Posterior sutured rectopexy, Functional outcome, Long-term follow-up, Randomized controlled trialhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589537019301580
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jin Hidaka
Hossam Elfeki
Jakob Duelund-Jakobsen
Søren Laurberg
Lilli Lundby
spellingShingle Jin Hidaka
Hossam Elfeki
Jakob Duelund-Jakobsen
Søren Laurberg
Lilli Lundby
Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study
EClinicalMedicine
author_facet Jin Hidaka
Hossam Elfeki
Jakob Duelund-Jakobsen
Søren Laurberg
Lilli Lundby
author_sort Jin Hidaka
title Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study
title_short Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study
title_full Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study
title_fullStr Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study
title_full_unstemmed Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study
title_sort functional outcome after laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: six-year follow-up of a double-blind, randomized single-center study
publisher Elsevier
series EClinicalMedicine
issn 2589-5370
publishDate 2019-11-01
description Summary: Background: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for rectal prolapse has been implemented to reduce postoperative bowel symptoms. The preoperative-to-postoperative change in a double-blinded, randomized study comparing it to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) found no significant difference between the two procedures after one year. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term functional outcomes. Methods: From November 2006–January 2014, 75 patients were randomized to LVMR (n = 37) or LPSR (n = 38). In March 2017, questionnaires containing constipation symptom score (PAC-SYM), quality of life score (PAC-QoL), obstructed defecation score (ODS), Cleveland clinic constipation and incontinence scores (CCCS, CCIS) were mailed to all the patients included in the RCT. Prolapse recurrences and mesh complications were recorded. Finding: Sixty-nine patients were available for long-term follow-up. Questionnaires were completed by 64 patients (94.4%). The median follow-up was 6.1 years. The total PAC-QoL was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.26 (0.14–0.83) compared to the LPSR group 0.93(0.32–1.61)(P = 0.008). The total PAC-SYM was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.5 (0.21–0.87) compared to the LPSR group 1.0 (0.5–1.5)(P = 0.031). Except for CCIS, the ODS and the CCCS significantly favored the LVMR group at six years (P = 0.011 & 0.017). Only three(8.82%) patients in the LVMR group developed recurrence compared to seven(23.33%) in the LPSR group (P = 0.111). Interpretation: The long-term functional outcome after LVMR is superior to that after LPSR. Larger multicenter studies are warranted. Funding: None. Keywords: Rectal prolapse, Ventral mesh rectopexy, Posterior sutured rectopexy, Functional outcome, Long-term follow-up, Randomized controlled trial
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589537019301580
work_keys_str_mv AT jinhidaka functionaloutcomeafterlaparoscopicposteriorsuturedrectopexyversusventralmeshrectopexyforrectalprolapsesixyearfollowupofadoubleblindrandomizedsinglecenterstudy
AT hossamelfeki functionaloutcomeafterlaparoscopicposteriorsuturedrectopexyversusventralmeshrectopexyforrectalprolapsesixyearfollowupofadoubleblindrandomizedsinglecenterstudy
AT jakobduelundjakobsen functionaloutcomeafterlaparoscopicposteriorsuturedrectopexyversusventralmeshrectopexyforrectalprolapsesixyearfollowupofadoubleblindrandomizedsinglecenterstudy
AT sørenlaurberg functionaloutcomeafterlaparoscopicposteriorsuturedrectopexyversusventralmeshrectopexyforrectalprolapsesixyearfollowupofadoubleblindrandomizedsinglecenterstudy
AT lillilundby functionaloutcomeafterlaparoscopicposteriorsuturedrectopexyversusventralmeshrectopexyforrectalprolapsesixyearfollowupofadoubleblindrandomizedsinglecenterstudy
_version_ 1724723534537687040